The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

[…]

This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.

[…]

Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.

This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.

I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not by a long shot.

If the judicial tenure commission and bar associations are not already looking into this matter, something is even more wrong than the fact that a Muslim was sitting in judgement of a case when he should have, at the very least, recused himself.

Well, it is alarming behavior of a judge in a democratic society, but on the other side, the second, "christian", dress should not be "pope" but "Jesus" to create analogy to the "Muhammad". And further we may ask, why "pope" dress was chosen and if "Jesus" dress would not sparkle comparable incident.

Of course the judge should be fired and never be allowed to work as ajudge. You will find every Moslemjudge, Police officer/inspector orpolitician etc will favour anotherMoslem irrespective of evidence.Theyare all in a conspiracy called Islam.

So the judge in effect used SHARIA law, essentially bypassing CONSTITUTIONAL LAW he originally swore to uphold when he took the damned job. That's an offensive abuse of judicial power, and he should of course be REMOVED. I think the word is IMPEACHMENT when it comes to beginning that process. Any of you Pennsylvania citizens care enough to look into that?

Karma is a bitch. These atheists are provocateurs and got what was coming to them. As a Christian, I'm offended by their costumes, but I understand the rule of law in this "free" society, so it's the social contract we have to face. However, I'm not going to shed any tears over his assault. I do agree that he has a definite case for appeals and grounds for a case agains the Mohammedan judge.

Why do we let this type of Mohammedan scum into the United States in the first place? Obviously the islamic criminal and judge should be immediately deported. I do not agree with atheists, but I do cherish our God given liberties of free will.

But the foolish atheist thought Muzzies would behave like Christians and let him wear his Mo Zombie costume without retribution.

Here's a tip for atheists. Muzzies aren't like Christians, they tend to get violent at the slightest provocation, they are also perennial bullies. So if you're gonna yank their chains, be prepared for a fight.

The attacker "thought it was a crime to depict Mohammad in such a way. He has since learned otherwise."

...actually, no, he hasn't. If you are legally permitted to violently assault someone for doing something, then that generally confers the status of 'crime' on the provocation for the assault, because a legally sanctioned punishment is established for it (i.e. being assaulted). The only way to get around this would be to argue that being violently assaulted against your will did not represent a punishment...or that having a judge throw out the complaint because the victim is "a dufus" and "way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights" is somehow not legal sanction of the assault.

In a society under the rule of law, someone who goes about being "a dufus" properly faces the threat of having other people exercise their legal privileges to exclude and demean the "dufus". Those who make it their business to be offensive should be prepared to have people call them bad names and refuse to extend friendship to them (including the lending of voluntary aid). That is the legal right of the offended under the rule of law.

Religious persons refusing to stand up for (or otherwise assist) atheists attacked for blasphemy are well within their rights. But anyone who actually commits the attack is a criminal and needs to be dealt with as such.

Frankly, as a slightly sacrilegious person myself, I heartily encourage religious people to voice their contempt for atheists even while being energetic in their efforts to uphold the law. It is the principle of law that gives the religious the undisputed right to taunt the atheist, so to preserve that right it makes sense to uphold the principle of law.

I credit this atheist with at least being consistent and taking on Islam, not just Christianity like all the left wing biased unprincipled atheists do who are merely anti-Christian, anti-western but tiptoe around Islam, the one religion creating trouble for atheists and all other faiths around the world in thousands of incidents. Elephant dung on a Madonna painting, a crucifix in urine, even dildos displayed in San Francisco's gay district in the shape of Christ and Buddha but NONE of this grossness has ever included Mohammed. Until so-called atheists or anarchists start equal action against the Religion of Pieces, they are just commies in another of their disguises (other disguises are as feminists and greenies). Their double standard, always excusing the sins of Islam and leftist regimes gives them away.

Until so-called atheists or anarchists start equal action against the Religion of Pieces, they are just commies in another of their disguises

Ah, right. As a small and unjustly-hated minority, you want THEM to go onto the front lines of the war with Islam at great personal risk, where a great many of YOU will say "well, they deserve it" (see #12 above).

When atheists can explain why they feel a moral imperative to spit on the religious beliefs of others, then I'll be willing to consider that some of the hatred they (generally deliberately) inspire is "unjust".

But for the religious to work tirelessly to persecute and ridicule all public expressions of atheism (as atheists have done to religion) is merely fair play, feelings of hatred being put aside for the moment. Of course, very few religions are quite as focused on mocking atheism as atheists are generally focused on mocking religion...religions have better things to do. But it is simple justice for the religious to make as much of a point of mocking atheism as atheists make of mocking religion.

As for going to the front lines of the war...it is disproportionately the religious who have always done that. So that argument doesn't really hold water either.

Before I get into this rebuttal, let me say that this is the kind of talking-past-each-other "debate" that can drive a man to drink.

When atheists can explain why they feel a moral imperative to spit on the religious beliefs of others

Why do you characterize atheist critique of religion to be "spitting on beliefs", but not Muslim claims about Christianity (let alone Judaism)? It is because it's safer to vent hatred at people who abhor religious violence than those who practice it as a sacrament, isn't it? It's easier to let them storm the beaches in the face of machine-gun fire.

Don't be surprised if atheists refuse to do your work for you if you spit on them. You need to mock the "prophet" yourself, just to make sure that Muslims go to jail for any violent responses and the First Amendment continues to mean something.

I consider it a moral imperative to point out error. Mockery works better than cool rationalism for issues which are largely emotional. If you have a problem with that, you're essentially saying that you dismiss facts out of hand but mockery based on those same facts irritates you... which is a pretty damning admission. If you were right on the facts you couldn't be upset, but merely showing you where you're wrong does not stir you from your comfortable dogma.

But for the religious to work tirelessly to persecute and ridicule all public expressions of atheism (as atheists have done to religion) is merely fair play

Really? What do you include under "all public expressions of atheism"? Do you include modern medicine, which denies that spirits and demons have any role in illness, including mental illness? Do you include modern geology, which demonstrates that the Earth is over 4 billion years old and denies that divine wrath has anything to do with earthquakes and volcanic eruptions? Etc. etc. ad nauseam.

I bring these things up to you because you can't deny that there are Christians who actually do include those things, and you probably believe that they are wrong. Stop beating up on atheists for simply being more consistent about the real world and its philisophical implications than you are.

As for going to the front lines of the war...it is disproportionately the religious who have always done that.

Yet when an atheist steps up to the plate, you abuse him for it. Fine ally you are.

First, off, you're the one making a deliberately provocative and unjustified assumption by saying that I "characterize atheist critique of religion to be "spitting on beliefs", but not Muslim claims about Christianity (let alone Judaism)". However, at least Muslims and Jews claim some moral imperative for doing so. Atheists do not, even when directly challenged on this point. At least, you didn't do so very convincingly.

And I personally have put my life on the line for the profession of my belief in the principle of impartial justice and the necessity of those presuming to enforce the law also being subject to it...for which a group of armed men forced their way into my home and attempted to murder me. It was unpleasant...but the experience has only strengthened my resolve to support and defend the rule of law.

I "mock" the 'prophet' plenty, but by asserting what I believe to be the truth, that his life and revelations are largely convenient fictions designed to justify tyrannical rulers. See, saying what I consider to be the truth makes sense as a response to a moral imperative to point out error, making objectionable allegations without regard to their truth does not...it would morally require you to point out your own errors, which you do not. It also happens to be psychologically ineffective, which you might know if you were earnest in your desire for all truth.

Your assertion that effective medicine (as opposed to Nazi medical science, which is an expression of atheism that I do oppose) is an expression of atheism would make more sense if Islam were the only religion in the world. But it isn't. And your lumping in of the rest of science as "atheist" is merely revealing your own irrational hatred of religion.

I actually think that people should be free to believe what they honestly believe, even if it is "contrary to current scientific consensus". I've been a consistent global warming "denialist" for over twenty years, since before most people were even aware of the theory. I regarded it as perfectly acceptable for me to reject the "scientific consensus" when I happened to know it was wrong. I don't see any logical reason I should deny others the same privilege.

Nor do I claim to necessarily know, on every possible point, whether the current consensus is wrong or not. So I keep an open mind when someone who has devoted themselves to study of a field declares that the current consensus is wrong even if I don't follow their argument.

Christians and Jews suffer the same abuse as always from atheists. Every time Muslims commit some crime or atrocity against a clearly religious person, we're treated to dozens of "they deserved it" and "glad to see the crazies killing each other off" comments from atheists.

What's good for the goose...the principle of reciprocity is the first and most important pillar of justice. Atheists don't get special treatment that they haven't accorded to anyone else. I don't just fight against Jihad, I fight for the principle of justice.

I'm also for truth as opposed to merely against (other people's) errors, and for freedom as opposed to merely against (my personal) enslavement. Being for something rather than just against things is a bit alien to the atheist mindset, but you should try it.

The judge is a convert (if his name is anything to go by). At the very least, he is an honest man... dare I say an honourable man (you know, like Brutus).

We've had a similar case in Australia - ladies and gentlemen, I give you Ms Pat O'Shane. The echoes are almost uncanny. I hope (and pray) that the results are the same, because this is a gross violation of due process.

First, off, you're the one making a deliberately provocative and unjustified assumption by saying that I "characterize atheist critique of religion to be "spitting on beliefs", but not Muslim claims about Christianity

Mea culpa. It was unjustified, but you made the identical error by deeming it "deliberately provocative". I was careless, not sufficiently distinguishing you from the author of #12.

at least Muslims and Jews claim some moral imperative for doing so. Atheists do not

This implicitly equates "moral" with "religious". The death toll of religions over the centuries doesn't constitute a moral imperative to criticize the wrong thinking so that it doesn't happen again? Your language both paints with a very broad brush and is vague enough to encompass that nasty old double standard (that you just denied you held).

If anything, atheists average MORE moral than the religious. Atheists are a minuscule fraction of people in prison, much smaller than their segment of the population.

Your assertion that effective medicine ... is an expression of atheism would make more sense...

Where's the mention of God in it? Nowhere. It's absolutely atheistic. Modern medicine, like modern science, has no theistic elements at all.

(as opposed to Nazi medical science, which is an expression of atheism that I do oppose)

The people who sent their soldiers out with the motto "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles were atheists? Really? You're as bad as the leftards who insist that the National Socialists were right-wingers. Ridiculous; they were just opposed to International Socialism (Bolshevism). They still socialized the control of everything, though they left the putative owners in place rather than executing them.

And your lumping in of the rest of science as "atheist" is merely revealing your own irrational hatred of religion.

There's two interesting words I'd like you to justify: "irrational" and "hatred". Please show me how I hate religion (if you can disinguish that from wanting the religious to leave me alone). Also tell me how a dislike of religious diktat, and a revulsion to whatever it is about so many of the religious that they hate me simply for not being one of them any more*, is "irrational". I find it quite rational (though I oppose Islam much more vigorously than non-theocratic Christianity and find Shintoism and Hinduism to be not worth worrying about here/now).

* You can't say this doesn't exist when comment #12 is up there. You also can't claim that atheists don't have a case when one of the most prominent Christian theologians proclaimed "Credo quia absurdum est". Last, demanding that everyone's position be "non-offensive" on the basis of religion is taking us to this, which amounts to Shari'a; it concedes ground that Islam will take without hesitation.

Just to be clear, I feel no need at all to be distanced from Qualis Rex's comment.

Yes, the current weakness of Christianity in rejecting the advance of Islam is largely the fault of atheists and their past, present, and future demands for freedom from public religion. If you want to bring up all the deaths that have supposedly be caused by religion, then maybe you should also take into account the genocides and massacres that were prevented by strong religious communities willing to stand up for themselves. Or maybe you should keep in mind that the toll taken by atheist regimes in the last century has outstripped all "religious" homicides combined for the last couple of millennia.

I didn't equate moral with religious. But you have to make a consistent basis for your morality...saying that you make outrageously untrue statements to offend people because they believe something you think untrue and it's your moral imperative to "fight error" (using error, apparently) doesn't constitute a moral reason anymore than my saying I drink hot chocolate to fight "chocolate".

I'm not demanding that nobody be offensive, I'm just saying that nobody should be specially exempted from offense.

Including atheists.

And I say it because historically, it has been atheists who have been the most willing to kill other people for offending them (even if they always claim to have "found God" once they are held accountable for their crimes).